The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

If there's an afterlife and accountability to a divine judge that'll grant you an unlimited pardon so long as you believe the right things and bow and scrape, like your god does, then the same question could be posed to you: since the entirety of your religious salvation is predicated on escape from accountability via a sacrifice that has already been made and can absolve you of any crime so long as you accept it, why aren't you doing whatever you want, what difference does it make?

Clearly you don't understand the Christian faith. The sacrifice of Christ was not made so that we could go on sinning, it was made so that we could be reconnected to God and to be empowered to overcome sin.

In my case, I've got about seven billion people on this planet that I'm accountable to, some of them including friends and family that I don't want to lose, and future generations, who will inherit the planet after I'm gone. That's a much more solid level of accountability than some god you can't even demonstrate exists, who's already given you a free pass for life, if your religion is to be believed.

You make it sound like the Christian faith ignores the rest of the world. Atheists, as a subset of our community are a million miles behind what the Church does, and has done for the poor for centuries. When you catch up, feel free to criticize. BTW, can you give me a list of atheist charities?

---

How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real. 

Everything that we are capable of testing under QM has proven to be true.  QM shows that there are other dimensions.

Can you give me a reference for the proof of these other dimensions?

---

DNA isn't a code, our intepretation of DNA forms a code for convenience. Yet another equivocation.

What is a codon and what does it do?

---

So if the vast majority of mutations wreak havoc with an organism, and a vast number of positive mutations are required to go from pond slime to human beings, isn't it a giant leap of faith to think you could go from one living organism in the beginning, to hundreds of thousands of wildly different species with virtually no trace of failed intermediates?

The "failed intermediates" never survived enough to breed and pass on their failed genetic makeup. How would you be expecting to spot them?


Also, I think that, in the beginning, there must have been lots of similar self-replicating "organisms" which all self-assembled spontaneously in the same "soup" conditions...

 Failed intermediates may not be the best terminology. I was wondering why we don't see a stack of weird half breeds or transitional species in the fossil record. Given that there are so many thousands of different species that presumably evolved from one life form, why don't we see an abundance of evidence for species transition?

---

So out of the estimated 107 billion human beings that have ever lived, dating back over 200,000 years, what new species have evolved so far?

Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump used to say. Maybe keep up with research and recent fossil finds, if that's not too much to ask.

You haven't asked why there are still monkeys so far. But I'm sure that's on the horizon too, since it's in the book of apologist 101.

"The term “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance and rapid diversification of most major living animal body plans (phyla) in the fossil record within an interval of perhaps 20 million years or less, a relatively short period in evolutionary history." http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...-explosion

We are expected to believe that thousands of different species evolved in a massive explosion of life in the relatively short time frame, 20 million years. Now if man kind has been around for 200,000 years, which is 1% of the time to go from pond slime to a huge number of advanced life forms, why no new species, and why hasn't man changed much?